Another negatively biased AMD review from bit-tech.net, I am not surprised anymore. Only 2 game tests, only medium resolution, but strictly negative conclusions. Do yourself a favor and read some other web-sites.
From Overclock3D.net:
"Anyone who has an opinion to voice, and with hardware that's everybody, has long held the belief that games don't take advantage of extra cores enough to justify spending your cash on anything other than a mental dual-core. All of our results showed this belief to be absolute rubbish. The Dirt 2 test had the stock AMD Phenom II X6 1090T beating our 4GHz i7 930 system, despite giving up 800MHz in processing power, having dual rather than tri-channel RAM, and being priced at a similar level."
bit-tech.net you stink!!!

How is a review that shows a chip in a price range similar to another that performs on average 15% slower accross the board when it's got more cores make the review biased in favour of the intel chip?? All it means is that the intel architecture ia still better and will be until amd decide to produce something different. Ithought it was a very nice review and the chip is certainly a good buy in terms of how mug performance you get vs the power it uses. At this price though it should be quicker...

it seems other reviews found that the 1090T performed as a phenom would be expected in games, a few frames a second behind intels but looked positivly on where the phenom improved, multiple threaded apps where it more often than not beats intels in the same price range. So, that wouldn't be called a success?

Well i am quite excited, about this being a normal person with a family and what not, the price range of the intels are too much for myself but the amd`s are just perfectly priced. But again i would like to see a few benchies where it is being tested more. I am sure bit-tech will do that for us again soon.

Because:
"ASUS has started to distribute a new BIOS, 0602  this actually provides degraded performance as well as issues with Turbo core. Please encourage press to use the 0505 BIOS that can be found on the FTP."

According to Tom's, The i5-750 performs about the same in the games tests at stock speed and I doubt that the results would change much once overclocked. So at least in games it seems to be like for like with a £150 processor. But in multitasking tests it left the i5-750 miles behind and caught up with the i7 CPUs.

So if I was building a system mainly for gaming right now it would be based around the i5-750. If I had more money to through at the system or frequently use multitasking apps that require more horse power then I would go for the i7-930.

As Bit-Tech says in the last paragraph:
Only if you have a compatible AMD motherboard and just want to upgrade the CPU should you look to buy the Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition.

Originally Posted by zagortenayAnother negatively biased AMD review from bit-tech.net, I am not surprised anymore. Only 2 game tests, only medium resolution, but strictly negative conclusions. Do yourself a favor and read some other web-sites.
From Overclock3D.net:
"Anyone who has an opinion to voice, and with hardware that's everybody, has long held the belief that games don't take advantage of extra cores enough to justify spending your cash on anything other than a mental dual-core. All of our results showed this belief to be absolute rubbish. The Dirt 2 test had the stock AMD Phenom II X6 1090T beating our 4GHz i7 930 system, despite giving up 800MHz in processing power, having dual rather than tri-channel RAM, and being priced at a similar level."
bit-tech.net you stink!!!

Christ that review is an utter joke. They don't even list what resolution is used on the game tests (kindof important when trying to compare processors.....) only 'maximum settings'. The Warhead minimum framerates are very odd, nearly 3 times the i7 930 @ 4ghz? I'm sorry but no.

As a quick comparison Bit's review shows the Core i7-980X (6 core) to be barely faster (minimum or average) than the Core i7-930 in Crysis at the same clock speed (well 4.4 vs 4.3).

to be honest the 750 is a great chip but with little upgrade path, the 930 is old and board and memory costs hinder.

my guess is that this chip will become more and more relevent as time moves on and cores are utilised but am3 (and the chip) are old tech.

I'm looking for an upgrade from the 939 board and basically want great multitasking and reasonable gaming - most notably with starcraft 2 and fall out on high with 3d (looking at a gtx 470), on the work side its the multitasking and rendering that will swing it.